I might have two religions. I am a Pagan. And I am a constitutionalist. I absolutely accept the constitution as a living document; a document that can be amended to adjust to changing mores (like equal civil rights) and new technology (like the Internet). But I also think the original documents that founded our country are pretty fracking awesome and very forward thinking. The basic tenets espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights remain rooted in the American psyche. Or they should be. Admittedly, though, it’s easy to forget our roots in this respect and let legislation that counters these basic tenets slip by.
That’s what happened on January 7, 2002 when President George W. Bush signed a law that allows religious organizations receiving federal funds to consider religious affiliation in their hiring practices. To be clear, this law did not follow the legislative process (see this video for a reminder and a bit of reminiscing), it was an executive order (number 13279). So, its not like (the royal) we let a bill slip by without voicing our opposition because there was no bill. Still, I was completely ignorant about the whole affair until our dear friend Brad, an Episcopal priest in Houston, sent Jax and I an email about it.*
I’m glad I know about it now, though. Well, I’m glad to be informed, but not happy about the information. This kind of policy finagling matters to me. A lot. This finagle in particular matters to me because it affects both of my faiths…Paganism and constitutionalism. It affects Paganism because it is related to religious equality. [I’ll get back to this point!] It effects constitutionalism because it violates the prohibition against federal or state support of religion, more commonly known as the separation of church and state. [Editorial note from Jax: The Princesses have a difference of opinion on the content of EO 13279, and I do not look on it with disfavor. I’ll post my take in the comments!]
“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. — Associate Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
But let me back up here a minute and give you low down on this low down law. I’ve been assuming you are familiar with the whole “separation of church and state†thing — ‘cause it’s pretty important legislation in our nation’s history. But just in case you’re not in the U.S. or if you’re a bit rusty on the constitution, here is a brief timeline to help you put Executive Order 13279 in perspective:
1787 — U.S. Constitution, Article 4: No religious test can ever be required of any public office. I’m tellin’ you, man. The Founding Fathers had it goin’ on.
1789 — Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment: Congress can neither create a law that establishes a religion or create a law that prohibits a religion. You go James Madison! Uh. You went James Madison! Hmm…how do you make that work in past tense? Anyway, this became applicable to all branches of government through a Supreme Court decision in 1925.
1941 — President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 that banned discrimination by defense contractors based on race, religion, color or national origin. Now, that’s my kind of Bull Moose.
1964 — Civil Rights Act, Section 703 (a): It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.†Title VII however, makes exemptions for faith-based organizations, including church groups, allowing them to discriminate when filling locally (as opposed to government) funded positions. In other words, faith organizations can hire with impunity so long as they are spending their own money. I can dig that.
1965 — President Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 expanding EO 8802 prohibitions against employment discrimination to all government contractors, not just defense contractors. When I look at the progressive policies of LBJ, I sometimes I think I can forgive him for Vietnam…but prolly not.**
1996 — Welfare Reform Act allowed houses of worship to provide taxpayer-funded social services in a few welfare programs, aka Charitable Choice (see first definition). This is a critical turning point because faith organizations could receive federal funds (and subsequently did). Many believe, as do I, this compromised the wall between church and state. I wouldn’t call Charitable Choice the trebuchet that smacked the wall, but I would liken Senator John Ashcroft (the dude who wrote this legislation) to Chinese warriors in 300BC (the dudes who invented the trebuchet).
2002 — President Bush signed Executive Order 13279 and allowed faith-based organizations receiving federal money to circumvent anti-discrimination laws.*** In other words, faith organizations can hire with impunity no matter whose money they are spending. Hey, if you ever wondered when the Republican party started cow towing to the religious right, look no further! Actually, you would have to look further…further back. ‘Cause it started way before W. was president. <Making a Lurch sound and shaing my head.> To be clear, this order lets faith organizations hire who they want, but they are still prohibited from discrimination when it comes to serving people with federal dollars.
2010 — President Obama signed Executive Order 13559 requiring federal agencies to provide alternatives for people who do not want to receive social services from religious groups. Essentially, this order did jack shit to reverse the tolerance for discrimination in Order 13279. Obama. Dude. Constitutional fail.
And so the pendulum swings.
Why is this an issue to me, as a Pagan? Ostensibly, I should be able to form a Pagan group and request federal dollars to provide social services in my community. And I should be able to hang a sign in my window that says, “Non-Pagans Need Not Apply†when I hire case workers or file clerks or janitors. So what do I care if other faith-based organizations are doing this? Maybe its the conspiracy theorist in me, but I don’t think Charitable Choice was written with pagan groups in mind. Even if not inherent in design, that has been true in execution.
[Note: Data are from page 10 of this 2002 report. I know its totally out-dated, but I couldn’t find more recent information.]
As a social scientist, I know this distribution may have a selection bias. That is, the people getting Charitable Choice money may be the people who applied for money. Maybe Christian groups make up the largest proportion of recipients because they are the only ones who asked for money. There may not be any systemic slant towards Christian faith-based organizations. Still…you have to wonder with numbers like these and given the architects of the Charitable Choice movement. And I do wonder. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Christian faith-based organizations don’t deserve these federal dollars. These organizations are doing good work by offering excellent social services while following all the rules.
I also care because taxpayer-funded discrimination on any level for any reason is wrong. I personally believe discrimination regardless of the funding is wrong, but I can’t tell everyone what to do all the time (despite my being a Princess!). But I can tell legislators how to spend my tax dollars.
Why is this an issue now? June 25th was the 70th anniversary of Order 8802, when the wall between church and state started taking modern form. Our friend Brad is one of many clerical leaders who signed a petition asking President Obama to reverse Order 13279. But alas, no change has come. It’s not too late, though. You can still join the many voices asking for an end to Order 13279.
What say you readers? Do you give a hoot about faith-based organization being allowed to discriminate when they hire staff paid with federal dollars? Do you think that EO 13297 has been detrimental to the separation of church and state?
* Brad is my favorite Episcopal priest! And not just because he drops the “F†bomb like an infant drops a pacifier.
** My dad served in the Vietnam Conflict. My mom says it changed him…and not for the better. So, I’m not really sure I can ever get past Vietnam.
*** W. Bush did more than just sign Order 13279, but space doesn’t permit me to go into everything in detail. I recommend reading this Mathematica report for details; it’s the most recent report I can find.
7 comments
Diandra says:
Sep 17, 2011
My sister, who works ni child care, is directly affected by laws like these, since child daycare in Germany is mostly in the hands of the churches and they may discriminate based on which religion the job applicant belongs to. She says she would leave church with all the scandals they had going on these last years, but she is afraid it will make finding a job more difficult.
(I think job applications should be anonymized (wait, is that a word?) – no gender, no religion, no nationality. And I am pretty sure it would change how people are chosen for job interviews.)
So… Religion/spirituality is a personal choice and should not interfere with politics. Ever.
GG says:
Sep 19, 2011
Hi Diandra! I had no idea Germany was so conservative. I guess I think of European countries as progressive. But I suppose if there is a right-leaning country across the pond, Germany would be it. Hmph. Those are my peeps, too. Argh.
T.K. says:
Sep 17, 2011
I agree with Diandra, you should hire base on applicant skills, not gender, religion, or nationality. And the government shouldn’t be able to make exceptions to that for religious groups, or any other group, especially when federal funding is involved.
GG says:
Sep 19, 2011
Huzzah, T.K.
Jax says:
Sep 18, 2011
I said I’d stick my nose in here with my difference of opinion, so here goes…
Whether or not I’m okay with Executive Orders in general is another can of worms I won’t go in to, but I think it’s an infringement on religious freedom for the government to be able to dictate hiring criteria to a religious organization. This order fixed that. I know I’m not with the Pagan majority on this one, but I personally think the order is to the benefit of the separation of church and state, not detriment.
I recognize the stickiness comes from the distribution of federal funds, but the funds aren’t going to support religion, they’re going to support social services, and I don’t care who’s doing the social services as long as (a) they happen, (b) the _recipients_ are not discriminated against, (c) the social services are not handed out with a side of evangelism, and (d) the government cannot discriminate who it gives funds out to based on the organization’s religion (or lack thereof). The executive order covers all of these things.
Basically, I think the last thing we need to do is make it harder for people to help other people.
As a school teacher I’ve seen something similar when I thought about moving into private schools, but SO many of those are religiously funded I gave up the notion. Mostly because I’m not going to be happy somewhere where the culture is opposed to my faith, but also because they shouldn’t have to let a Pagan teach at their Christian school. It’s their right as a business to maintain a homogeneous religious culture. And I’m even okay with those schools receiving federal grants to help pay for school lunches or supplies or other secular things – just not to decorate their chapel or buy hymnals. And if a Pagan or an atheist or a Buddhist school wanted funding for secular things, then they should have equal access to those funds.
I’m much more concerned with initiation and endorsement. Government jobs – such as prison chaplains – should not be discriminated against based on religion. That is a job that is initiated by the government, not from the private sector, and that has to be open to anyone. Nor should the government (or a gov’t representative) endorse a specific religion by asking people to pray in a certain way, attend a certain religious event, or send their children to a specific religious school. Things that start from the government must be secular. Things that start in the private sector should, IMO, be controlled by the private sector.
Brad Sullivan says:
Sep 18, 2011
In short, Ginger, I agree with you. Thank your for your post, the history (almost none of which I knew) and your great thoughts on the subject!
In long…
I feel there should be no allowance for a faith-based organization which receives federal funding to hire people based on their religion. Realizing that those organizations would be spending the federal money for charitable purposes, (hopefully) giving direct assistance to people (a good and laudable thing), I still feel that once federal (taxpayer) dollars are spent, no discrimination based on religion can constitutionally apply.
If a church (using the church example as it is my frame of reference) decided to spend part of it’s pooled financial resources to provide direct assistance to people in need, then that would take resources from other possible aspects of that church’s common life (and would, I believe be the right thing to do). Such a church could simply set aside some of the pooled resources of the congregation, or the church could seek additional funds. Doing so would increase the amount of money which the church could direct to the assistance given. Doing so could also, in effect, free up the pooled resources of the congregation so they could be used on the afore mentioned other aspects of the church’s common life.
Take a church congregation of 100 people that pools together $100,000 for their common life (church building, clergy, education, parties, worship, etc.). Say that church sets aside $10,000 for assistance for people in need. Now that church only has $90,000 for their common life.
Now, say that same church puts on a fundraiser and raises $10,000. That church could grow the assistance program, or that church could put $10,000 back into it’s common life, with a total of $110,000 to spend. Less laudable, but fine.
Finally, say that church didn’t put on a fundraiser. Say that church sought and received federal funding for the assistance program. If the church received $10,000 from the government, then that church could still put the $10,000 of it’s pooled resources which it had been spending on assistance back into it’s common life. The government would then, in effect (though not in intention), be financing $10,000 church life. Personally, I’m not comfortable with even a hint of the government financing a religion of any kind.
There is no constitutional way such a church could continue to discriminate in its hiring practices (realizing my constitutional knowledge is only slightly more advanced than my three year old son’s, and he has not studied or even heard of the constitution).
The idea of the government giving federal dollars to faith based organizations for the purpose of direct assistance to people in need is a good idea. The dollars are likely to be well applied locally and personally. Once a faith based organization accepts federal funding for any program, however, the faith based organization must follow the rules of any organization receiving federal funding. Further, I’m not really sold on the idea of a faith based organization receiving federal funding.
If a religious group really wants to help folks in need, and they want federal dollars, then they can start a 501-C3. Then they can have all the federal dollars they want, and still have zero discrimination based on religion.
GG says:
Sep 19, 2011
Cheers, Brad! Thanks for reading and writing and for being uber cool.